Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment

Index · Statistics · Log

Psychology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	6	5	6		1	19
FL		1	1				2
GA	2	10	18	34		1	65
B	18	121	184	77		80	480
C	12	139	468	292		391	1,302
Start	11	178	685	1,099	25	1,763	3,761
Stub		4	102	576	55	1,478	2,215
List		10	30	43	1	1	85
Category		1			1,023	1	1,025
Disambig					11		11
File					6		6
Portal		1			14		15
Project					5		5
Template					118		118
NA			1	4	263		268
Other					9		9
Assessed	44	471	1,494	2,131	1,530	3,716	9,386
Unassessed		1				1,301	1,302
Total	44	472	1,494	2,131	1,530	5,017	10,688
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 7004390440000000000♠39,044			Ω = 4.95

This is the WikiProject Psychology assessment summary page. See WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP for more information. For Psychology articles, see Category:Psychology or Category:Psychology lists. For Psychology stubs, see Category:Psychology stubs.

Instructions

Quality

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Psychology}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Psychology|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class psychology articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class psychology articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class psychology articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class psychology articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class psychology articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class psychology articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class psychology articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class psychology articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class psychology articles)		List

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class psychology articles)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class psychology articles)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class psychology articles)		Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class psychology articles)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class psychology articles)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class psychology articles)		Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class psychology articles)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class psychology articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed psychology articles)		???

Importance

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Psychology}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance psychology articles)		Top
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance psychology articles)		High
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance psychology articles)		Mid
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance psychology articles)		Low
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance psychology articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance psychology articles		???

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Grading scheme

Quality scale

Quality descriptors

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	Water fluoridation (as of August 2014)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
GA	The article has attained good article status by passing an official review. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	YouTube (as of August 2014)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Apple Inc. (as of October 2017)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.	Bishop (chess) (as of August 2014)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	Interval vector (as of February 2014)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.	Crescent Falls (as of February 2013)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available.	List of National Basketball Association season assists leaders (as of April 2014)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947 (as of January 2013)

Importance scale

Importance descriptors

The article's importance, regardless of its quality

Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial

"DRAFT" WikiProject Psychology importance scale: The article's importance, regardless of its quality, particularly in terms of psychology's history, principles, scope, and methods.

Rate articles on overall importance. Use the basic descriptions, guided by the general examples when available. Always give the highest rating suggested by general examples at different levels.

Top	Subject is a must-have for Category:Psychology and is considered a core topic. The article is a likely target for encyclopedic research. Psychologists and other experts in psychology will generally be well-versed on the topic, and many non-psychologists will likely have some familiarity with it. Example: Intelligence
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details but is still important to the field of psychology. Many psychologists are knowledgeable of the topic. Published research from a variety of sources exists for the subject. Example: Big Five personality traits
Low	Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology

Assessment log (updated by bot)

Automatically-updated log; do not modify directly 

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.